Reality is a lie. Lying, therefore, makes this world go around. Accept it. Embrace it. Understand it fully. And most importantly, lie well and for all the right reasons.

Net Neuterality

No, not Net Neutrality, although that’s the pretense and cover. Net Neuterality (to neuter The Net) is the goal and Obama, once again, is playing his part masterfully. Net Neutrality was part of his campaign platform for his first term, but he saved it for the lame duck last half of his second term to address — and don’t think that wasn’t by design, because it most assuredly was — to address it under circumstances that will put the issue to bed once and for all and the pipe dream that is Net Neutrality will sleep like Rip Van Winkle, but unlike Rip, it’ll never wake up and neither will the rubes who swallow this Kabuki bait hook, line and sinker.

How many of you out there believe Obama and the Dems give two hoots about Net Neutrality? If you raised your hand, even though I didn’t ask you to, you have a deserved appointment with the convenient, pop-out-of-the-cake IS (Islamic State for those who need to catch (haha) up). Off with your heads you impressionable naive jockstraps. For the rest of you, I’m glad to know others aren’t buying the faux concern for a free and unencumbered internet, just don’t buy Lush Blimpblow’s garbage as the alternative. Blimpblow’s playing his part in this too, and Blimpblow likes to see you gouged by the likes of Comcast and Time Warner. That’s who he ultimately works for — that’s capitalism in his eyes, not the small business entrepreneur that is the backbone of America. This is precisely why I embrace free enterprise and not necessarily capitalism. Capitalism, as it’s practiced currently, is anti-free enterprise and anti-free market. It’s a permutation of communism. It sucks. We can do much better if we only put the free back in free enterprise. Capitalists don’t want that though, and so they legislate the perpetuity of their monopolization of everything, and everything includes OUR internet.

Officially, the Republicans have washed into Congress and taken control for the second half of Obama’s second term to prevent him from doing any more damage to America. This includes allegedly repealing the Affordable Care Act and blocking Obama’s attempts to encode Net Neutrality into law. Keep in mind “officially” is the operative word. In reality, the Republicans are playing the bad cop in this crappy Kabuki theater production to Obama’s good cop, or vice versa depending on whether you choose the red pill or the blue pill (affiliate as either Republican or Democrat). I choose neither pill, but I will take a couple shots of whiskey please and maybe a doobie if you don’t mind. It’s a ridiculous charade and the tragedy is the general public has been indoctrinated and conditioned to accept and believe this nonsense. What can you do? Nothing, except laugh and/or cry. I laugh, but you can cry like a sissy if it makes you feel better.

Alright, I see I’m already on the road to long-windedness with this post and I told myself upon my return I would shorten them up. Here’s my point in a nutcracker. The Kabuki to which I refer is designed to impale any efforts for Net Neutrality permanently. The ISP’s, in combination with their division called Government, want to control the internet; how much you pay and what you can access with it. Obama’s words related to this are perfect in every way — it’s what the internet should be, but it’s not his intent. His words are cover. He’s setting up a softball slow pitch for the Republicans to hit out of the park, meaning it’s the Republicans part in this Kabuki feature to slam Net Neutrality to the turf and snap its neck in Jack Tatum to Darryl Stingley fashion.

Here is an excellent article from The Verge covering the topic of Net Neutrality. It’s comprehensive and covers all facets of this important issue, and it is a vitally important issue. In another future post I will focus on the same modus operandi used to demolish Net Neutrality applied to healthcare. The same Game (so many games within The Game) is played, once again, on an easily duped and mislead public. Jonathan Gruber is correct when he says the American people are stupid. By and large they are, but it wasn’t and isn’t a choice. Most, except a handful of elite, are born into a compulsory system of social conditioning and indoctrination and as a result the capacity for objective, critical thought is either eviscerated or greatly impaired. Net Neutrality is the final nail in that coffin of ignorance. Without access to all information all the time, and instead subjected to 24/7 inanity and propaganda, there is no chance for Americans to be other than stupid except for the few who step outside of the fray. Those few who do stray from the intentional fray will be dealt with harshly by the rubes who have no idea they’re rubes. Those who dare to not abide, will be isolated and ostracized which is as harsh a punishment as can be dealt considering we humans are social creatures.

I will reproduce The Verge article linked to above in its entirety and highlight some of the excellent comments to the article since most of you don’t click on my excellent links. I can lead a horse to water, but if I want it to drink, apparently I have to force a feeding tube down its throat, so “here’s ur feedin tube Massa Hawkins, all minty and frosty jus like you like it.” Keep in mind as you read and research this article and its accompanying commentary that like The Affordable Healthcare Act the purpose of raising the issue by the officials raising it is directly contrary to the official intent encompassed in the duplicitous names they provide for the charade. The Affordable Care Act should be the The Insurance Profitablilty Act or The Unaffordable Care Act and The Net Neutrality Act should be named The Net Neuterality Act instead. Yes, I realize they haven’t given the Net Neutrality issue an official name yet, but they will, so I’m being preemptive since like a crappy quarterback, they’re (both the Republicans and Democrats inside and outside The Beltway in this Kabuki Theater charade) telegraphing their pass to the tight end.

Obama Says FCC Should Reclassify Internet As A Utility

By Jacob Kastrenakes on November 10, 2014 09:30 am

President Obama has come out in support of reclassifying internet service as a utility, a move that would allow the Federal Communications Commission to enforce more robust regulations and protect net neutrality. “To put these protections in place, I’m asking the FCC to reclassifying internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act,” Obama says in a statement this morning. “In plain English, I’m asking [the FCC] to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life.”

There’s been a growing battle around protecting net neutrality — the principle that all internet traffic, no matter what it is or where it comes from, should be treated equally — ever since the FCC’s original protections were struck down in court earlier this year. Those protections were able to be struck down because the commission didn’t make the rules in a way that it actually had authority over, so it’s been trying to create new rules that it will definitely be able to enforce. It hasn’t chosen to use Title II so far, but net neutrality advocates, now including President Obama, have been pushing for its use.

Regulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that’s a controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they’re losing some control over what they sell, and that they can’t favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it’s because that’s basically how the internet has worked up until now.

Obama’s support of Title II reclassification comes at a critical time for net neutrality. While the FCC is in the process of making new rules to protect net neutrality, those rules would actually allow internet providers to offer so-called “fast lanes,” effectively defeating the purpose of net neutrality in the first place. During a public comment period over the summer, Americans spoke out loudly against the proposal, but it’s not yet clear what the commission plans to do in response. FCC chair Tom Wheeler has said that he isn’t entirely opposed to Title II, but that’s appeared to be only if other methods won’t work first.

In a statement outlining what he’d like internet service to look like, Obama highlights four major points: internet providers wouldn’t be allowed to block websites offering legal content, they wouldn’t be allowed to intentionally slow down or speed up certain websites or services based on their own preferences, and they wouldn’t be able to offer paid fast lanes. Obama also asks that the FCC investigate and potentially apply net neutrality rules to the interconnect points that sit between service providers, like Comcast and Verizon, and content providers, like Netflix. That’s potentially huge news for Netflix, which has been arguing that this area of the internet should be covered by net neutrality all year.

Obama also asks that the commission apply these rules to mobile internet service. That would be a significant change as well, as mobile service hasn’t previously been subject to the same net neutrality rules that wired connections have been. That said, Obama does leave a significant amount of room for exceptions in the wireless space, potentially allowing some amount of throttling so that providers can manage their networks when under heavy use. Notably, his proposal also asks the FCC not to enforce rate regulations on internet service.

There’s still the big question of whether the FCC will listen to Obama’s recommendation and whether Congress will actually allow it. Obama’s support of Title II reclassification may provide the political support that the commission needs to justify such a rule change, but with Republicans wary of regulation taking over the Senate, it’s an increasingly risky proposition. The FCC may set the rules, but there’s plenty that Congress can do to sway its decisions. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has already tweeted out, “‘Net Neutrality’ is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.”

Following Obama’s announcement, the FCC responded with a statement that doesn’t really move the needle — and, in fact, basically says that it’ll lump Obama’s opinion in with everyone else’s. “As an independent regulatory agency we will incorporate the President’s submission into the record of the Open Internet proceeding,” chairman Wheeler says. “We welcome comment on it and how it proposes to use Title II of the Communications Act.”

Obama is well aware that he doesn’t set the policy here, but his statement points out to the commission that this policy change is well supported by the public. “The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately the decision is their’s alone,” Obama says. “But the public has already commented nearly 4 million times asking that consumers — not the cable company — gets to decide which sites they use.”

The Hill reports that Republicans are already moving toward an overhaul of the Communications Act after last week’s election, potentially streamlining the rules used to regulate different types of services, like phone, TV, and internet. Exactly what those changes will mean are unclear, but net neutrality advocates are reportedly concerned that it could move toward a deregulation of the communications industry.

In its statement, the FCC also confirms reports that it’s been examining taking a “hybrid” approach to net neutrality. It’s believed that the commission’s hybrid plan would place heavy regulations on interconnect points — making content providers like Netflix happy — while still allowing some degree of fast lanes for consumers.

Ultimately, the FCC just says that it needs more time. While it had hoped to have net neutrality rules in place by the end of the year, it’s clearly found that its current plans aren’t what people want. It now says that it needs time to determine what legal obstacles would come up should it use a hybrid approach or full Title II reclassification. “The more deeply we examined the issues around the various legal options,” Wheeler writes, “the more it has become plain that there is more work to do.”

As I mentioned above, the commentary to the linked The Verge article is as informative and insightful, if not more so, as/than the article itself, so make sure you peruse and review the comments if you have the time, and if you don’t have the time, try to make some time. It’s that important. Of course, I understand American sports, right now college and pro football, are equally important and require a great deal of your time, so you’ll have to choose. I’m guessing most will choose football. I can assure you that’s one thing that won’t be impeded by Net Neuterality. Bread & Circuses will continue to be front and center, you’ll just pay more dearly for it, but it doesn’t matter, you’ll pay whatever the asking price is, because it’s one of the few things left that feeds, and corrodes, your rotting souls.

You’re right that the government is stopping small companies from entering the market but not for the reason that article states. The real reason is the power of the monopolies to extort ludicrous bills and guarantees from local governments, which have so far managed to stifle competition by stopping completely municipal internet or cheaper prices from third parties.

If you research what’s asserted in the above comment further, you’ll find this is precisely what the ISP’s do and it’s what Lush Blimpblow loves about capitalism. The nattering nabob Blimpblow bellows about the Chicoms but he fails to turn the mirror on himself and his fellow capitalist Americoms. They’re all, the Chicoms and the Americoms, birds of the same feather. Tyrannical manipulation, exploitation and oppression of The Masses is their Game, and both of these divisions of Smart Communism are highly successful in their endeavor to monopolize the world and the universe.

I found the following comment telling, because apparently they can have a relatively free internet and a semblance of Net Neutrality in Europe and parts of Asia, but not in America — the alleged “land of the free and home of the brave.” It’s more like “the land of the indoctrinated & incarcerated and the home of the cowed & herded” if you ask me, or even if you don’t ask me.

So I guess we can both agree that we need to allow Governments to allow companies to compete with the large corporations so that we have more choices and cheaper broadband; something that countries in Europe and Asia do really well.

The next quote speaks to what I mentioned earlier, and that’s Obama is not sincere in his intent, and his intent does not match his flashy rhetoric. If he is serious and honest about Net Neutrality, he would have 1.) addressed it early in his first term when he had significant cache and goodwill and 2.) would never have appointed the CEO of the Cable Lobbying Organization to be the head of the FCC considering his (Obama’s) “official” intention regarding Net Neutrality. It’s clear to me, crushing Net Neutrality once and for all and neutering The Net instead, is a tag team effort by the Obama adminstration and the Republicans. It’s not good theater, but instead rather shabby and transparent for anyone who has any sense. Obama, via his bizarre behavior in his second term but especially in 2014, ensured a Republican takeover of Congress. It was ordained and he and his administrators and handlers did their part to make it happen.

It’s so odd – Obama appointed the CEO of the Cable Lobbying Organization to be the head of the FCC (who would “classify” these entities as utilities), what 1 year ago?….It’s an independent agency, Obama doesn’t get to run things there (and he knows that), so the Prez doesn’t get to tell FCCChairman Wheeler what to do.

It’s almost as if Obama thinks people will just take him at this powerless PR statement and forget all the damage he’s actually been doing behind the scenes over these years.

I’m all for this happening, but this is disengenuous at best…cause if he really felt this way he wouldn’t have appointed Cable Lobbying Organization CEO to be in charge of the FCC.

The following commentator validates and underscores what I just mentioned, even though he/she would never admit we’re being scammed by both “sides” in the faux debate with the already determined outcome.

Yep, damn it. Obama was my guy. Twice. He is right on this issue which will fuel the ignorant opposition to oppose it just because, like everything else. His weak-willed party lets pro-business Rethuglicans and Fox run roughshod over them and has got next to nothing done for six years. And now that the Senate and House is in majority they will let that Comcast and Verizon money shove the internet fast lanes down our throats.

And finally, this excellent comment addresses what they will do to content on the internet by manipulating the term “legal.” Porn will never be challenged because it’s too lucrative, but places like my blog will be blacklisted and inaccessible. Also, many websites some of you hardened anti-Americans like to visit will no longer be accessible because they will be considered “illegal,” and even though I consider you repugnant and imbecilic, I don’t condone that. Adults should be able to make up their own minds, otherwise they’re not really adults. Many of you had a choice to be the fools you are — and I believe everyone should have the choice to be a fool if that is their wish.

This is what concerns me. Al these statement talk about legal content but what this means isn’t defined in a clear way. Are we allowed to visit wikileaks, use Tor….? Changing the definition of legal to fit the needs of the government or Hollywood is a hidden danger in all these discussions.

Another commentator said: Look at the First Amendment. People talk about it as ‘freedom of speech’ but in the fact that it exists – there is automatically less freedom than there was before it.

I disagree; the way that (most of) the first amendment is worded, there are no qualifiers. The goal is to outline the fact that people have these rights by the nature of being born, and ensuring that the government cannot take those rights away. Let’s get the first amendment posted here for reference:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So in the text, there are not many qualifying “weasel words”, excepting the right of the people to PEACEABLY protest. That part actually does take something away because it inevitably also says that people cannot VIOLENTLY protest. However, the part protecting free speech does not have any such qualifiers.

Now, compare that to the text The Verge posted (which is not legal text, but it’s what we’re working from), using the phrase “LEGAL content” absolutely is a qualifier, and it’s one that you could drive a legal dumptruck through. If you don’t think that word will be stretched and contorted a million different ways, considering our current government situation, you’re insane.

Following, is a YouTube video of an interview by The Verge with Susan Crawford, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in NYC. She believes, and thoroughly and professionally supports her case, that the way to ensure Net Neutrality is at the local level (via mayors), not the state or nation level and keep in mind she once-upon-a-time served under Obama as his science and technology advisor. After watching this video, consider everything I and others have mentioned and underscored, and try to tell me Obama doesn’t know what Susan Crawford knows and therefore is determined, as a whore of the cable industry, to sequester Net Neutrality at the federal level thus precluding any grassroots local activism to secure Net Neutrality without federal government interference per Susan Crawford’s suggestion. Obama’s heading her suggestion off at the pass, in my best John Wayne impersonation.

To our Russian friends and non-Americans who visit this blog and read my posts and comments, I know I’ve been hard on Putin’s Russia. For that I won’t apologize, but what I will concede is what I’ve already conceded more than once at this blog; The Russian Oligarchs are a branch of the same tree of which the American Oligarchs are also a branch. The tree is the WWON (World Wide Oligarch Network) and the tree’s purpose is to monopolize the world and universe and it’s doing a damn good job in that dishonorable pursuit. Both branches seek to stifle freedom unless it’s the freedom to pay exorbitantly for shitty products and services which really isn’t freedom at all. The Net has been too free up to this point, so Russia, as is typical of it, takes out its hammer and smashes the freedom it zealously disdains. Russia is not subtle — it never was and it never will be. Russia has always bluntly and brutally squashed any form of unordained and unbridled expression and creativity, hence Putin’s crackdown on The Net. So emphatic is Russia to resort to the hammer (the hammer was even part of the U.S.S.R.’s emblem on its flag) to eliminate such threats, America’s own Peter, Paul & Mary rewrote a shitty Pete Seeger song about it as follows:

The Obama adminstration, The Democrats and The Republicans, all of whom represent not the Little People but the American Oligarch branch of the WWON (World Wide Oligarch Network) tree, have the same goal as Putin’s Russia in regards to The Net and Net Neutrality. Like Putin’s Russia, the American Oligarchs seek to neuter The Net — they’re just a little more sophisticated and less crude about it than Putin’s Russia. The American Oligarchs have chosen the velvet-glove-covered fist hidden in a trojan horse rather than a hammer. The result will be the same.

That’s it for now. Keep lying well and live long. I know I will — at least the lying part, but with the living long part, there are no guarantees.

Addendum

Earlier, I mentioned that ISP’s control the legislative process to hold you and your internet experience captive. They don’t just do this at the federal level, but also at the state and local level. The following Motherboard Vice article provides excellent insight into what can only be called communism. Blimpblow is an asshole. He works for these totalitarian creeps. He is an Americom.

Hundreds of Cities Are Wired With Fiber—But Telecom Lobbying Keeps It Unused

In light of the ongoing net neutrality battle, many people have begun looking to Google and its promise of high-speed fiber as a potential saving grace from companies that want to create an “internet fast lane.” Well, the fact is, even without Google, many communities and cities throughout the country are already wired with fiber—they just let their residents use it.

The reasons vary by city, but in many cases, the reason you can’t get gigabit internet speeds—without the threat of that service being provided by a company that wants to discriminate against certain types of traffic—is because of the giant telecom businesses that want to kill net neutrality in the first place.

Throughout the country, companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, and Verizon have signed agreements with cities that prohibit local governments from becoming internet service providers and prohibit municipalities from selling or leasing their fiber to local startups who would compete with these huge corporations.

Because ISPs often double as cable and telephone companies, during contract negotiations with governments, they’ll often offer incentives to the government—such as better or faster service, earlier access to (their company’s) cable internet for residents, and the like—in exchange for a non-compete clause.

To be clear, these are often strictly local agreements between cities and cable giants.

More at link above

I thought this comment to the article was excellent, so I’m posting it as well since it underscores the sentiment of this blog post. Excuse the grammar.

In many cases City, County, State, and Federal Officials acting under the color of law and official right enter these ‘idiot agreements’ as if their ‘constituents’ requested it. In most cases the issue is never put to the People and their agents (so called representatives in government) act without the full, complete, and advised consent of the People they are supposedly representing. They arbitrarily decide that they know what is best for the whole and act accordingly (Generally what’s is most equitable for them (Public servants)).

I can always count on you to humble the least and most humble (either will do) amongst us. This is what I’ve always admired about you — you can and do knock the most egomaniacal and self-absorbed down to size, although most if not all who fit that character profile don’t realize you have snatched their metaphorical wallet which makes your game all the more wonderful to watch and enjoy. It sure beats football which I gave up long ago.

I wish I could have been there as a fly on the wall as you submissively ingratiated yourself to JHK in an effort to manipulate him into removing his ban of your screen name. You could have just emailed me and I would have shown you a much easier way that wouldn’t have entailed putting your tail between your legs. You have to admit, I was correct in my call that P4W’s method wouldn’t work and your window of time to post under another IP address would close once you traveled back to New Jersey.

By the way, out of curiosity, what are you going to do with the Accord?

FYI, upon closer inspection you’ll note “disengenuous” was part of a quoted comment by another author from another source, so it would be inappropriate of me to alter said sourced information. I won’t take the fall for someone else’s spelling and grammar errors.

I sold the car an hour ago to my next door neighbor for $3900. Kelly Blue Book says it was worth $4345. That pathetic family is so f’d up that my wife wanted to “do them a solid” (TM – Cosmo Kramer). The husband, age 51, has been unemployed for 5 years and has become a depressed alcoholic. The house is falling apart and is ready to crumble into its foundation (I have described this at length over at CFN several times). Joe never lifts a finger. The leaves in the rain gutters have been there ten years. Eventually they will compress into coal. There are pieces of fruit that have rolled under the couch that have grey fur on them. Not only did I take $400 less than I could have gotten, my wife gave Steph a big container of stuffed cabbage that she made last night. My wife is a saint.

Not only did I take $400 less than I could have gotten, my wife gave Steph a big container of stuffed cabbage that she made last night. My wife is a saint.

She must be. In my very first post I mentioned a certain gift I have for foretelling the future. Today, Sylvie (my Golden Retriever) and I went for our seven mile run at the local park (she likes to chase the deer until they kick her in the mouth then she finds her way back to me with blood dripping down her chin) and during the run I wondered if your wife, since she’s part Polish, made galumpkis. I considered it bizarre I thought this at the time — but it just popped into my head. Several hours later you tell me she does and yet, not formally at least, I never asked you the question except in my thoughts. Far out. This happens to me all the time — it’s practically commonplace. It freaks my family out.

My wife and I make galumpkis too — my deceased grandmother’s recipe. We have them a couple of times a year. They make you fart like the dickens, but damn are they good. Mashed potatoes are a must with them and preferably a proton pump inhibitor the morning before to hold back the acid attack.

I’m adding an addendum to this post and I’ve already added a new cartoon of Blimpblow for emphasis. That’s sad about the Accord. My daughter was looking forward to it. From the description you provided of your neighbor, the car won’t be appreciated or respected. Your neighbor certainly won’t shelter it like your bro did, that’s for sure. Oh well.

Nice reply to my reply but you’ve got one thing wrong, my wife has no Polish blood in her…unless…hmm… what about that polish mailman? She’s Czech on her mother’s side and Greek/Albanian on her father’s side. (Note: the Greece – Albania border was always in dispute and people never knew whether they were Greek or Albanian.)

I knew it was a former Soviet state, but I wasn’t sure which one so I went with Poland. I wasn’t too far off. It does explain the galumpkis. All the slavic countries do galumpkis. I’ll have to tell my wife to put them on the menu — it’s about that time.

As for Rutgers, considering its progressive inclinations of which you are well-acquanted, and the way the social agenda is evolving in America, I suspect sometime in the not too distant future Women’s Studies will expand its reach to a Women’s Football program and Rutgers could very well be the first university to not only field a women’s football team, but perhaps be the first university where the women’s football team wins a bowl bid. The sponsor can appropriately be a tampon or douche product. The Summer’s Eve Bowl or the Kotex Bowl. Wouldn’t that be a blast? It’d be a bloody gridiron battle, no doubt. Women who are angry they weren’t born with a dick can be ten times more ferocious than men with dicks down to their knees, and that juxtaposing clash would make for excellent football.

KF, this obituary could only have been authored by you. Only you would have the temerity and audacity to spice up an obituary. The last line is so consummately unorthodox for an obituary, it could only be you. Good job. You did your bro right — and he did you right. Are you keeping his ashes, or did you dump them in the ocean? You might have turned 74 today, but you don’t look a day over 73, so don’t sweat the family curse. I think the whole “happy birthday” thing is bullshit, so I won’t wish you one — especially over the internet. I will say, from a career standpoint, your brother and you were very similar. What’s up with that? No one wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer? My father graduated from St. Joe’s in the late 40’s and my brother is married to a woman who grew up in Collingswood. It’s a Small World afterall.

Q. Shtik’s brother, 77, died suddenly of a heart attack at his home in Miramar, FL on Sep 22, 2014. He was born and raised in Collingswood, NJ and moved to Tequesta, FL in 1969 when his parents retired there. Q.’s bro never married and is survived only by his brother Q. of Highland Park, NJ, sister-in-law Mrs. Q., and their 3 children and 2 grand children. Q.’s frère graduated in 1960 from St. Joseph’s University, Phila, PA. He worked as an auditor for The Sperry and Hutchinson Co. and many years as an accountant for the City of Miami Beach and the City of Sunrise, FL. He served in the US Army and active reserves. A lifetime of “playing” the stock market went beyond mere hobby.

My brother’s ashes are in this room with me. On Thanksgiving when the whole family is here I’m thinking of inserting them in the pyramid I built. Do I have access to your email address? If so I’ll try to send you a pic of “The Great Pyramid of Highland Park.” I very proud of it.

Q., my email address can be found by accessing the “About” page of this blog. It’s been there all along. Please send me a picture of the pyramid. I will compare it to what I’ve imagined it to look like per your description. What will you build next — a mini Eiffel Tower? Gateway Arch? Hoover Dam? There are so many possibilities. Whatever you decide, decide quickly, because 77’s just around the corner and time is of the essence.

It’s too late now due to the onset of cold weather, but perhaps in the late spring or early summer you can consider spending a night in your creation. You and I can document it and maybe make a movie based on that experience. It can be a sequel to Night at the Museum. We can title it Night in the Pyramid. Ben Stiller can play you — I know, I know, he’s a little shorter than you, but it’s theater so we have to allow for artistic license and the suspension of reality. He did a decent job in the remake of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, plus, I’ve always liked Ben Stiller’s work, and I like his father’s work equally as well. Jerry Stiller made me piss my pants in laughter as George’s father on Seinfeld.

perhaps in the late spring or early summer you can consider spending a night in your creation. – Cold N.

============

No, this is not possible. There is only one access point and it’s near the top of the pyramid (the 37th tier of 46 tiers counting from the bottom) where the opening is about 11 inches square. The box containing my brother’s ashes is 9.375″ x 7″ so it can be inserted easily. If there were a way for a person to get inside they could lie diagonally. That dimension is about 8 feet.

I HAVE thought about other interesting things to build. I just may start researching Hoover Dam.

So, seriously, what is your brother’s wife’s name and how old? And ask her what her address was in Collingswood.

So, seriously, what is your brother’s wife’s name and how old? And ask her what her address was in Collingswood.

Here’s a hint. I don’t know the address of her childhood home. I have a great story about the first time she came to meet our family of eight children. Even then I knew how to stick it to people good. I think I was this way out of the womb, maybe even in the womb.

I know her father passed away about eight years ago, at least, and I’m not sure if her mother’s still alive or if she is whether or not she stills lives in Collingswood. I talk to them (my brother and his wife) infrequently. We’re somewhat estranged.

Here’s a hint. I don’t know the address of her childhood home. I have a great story about the first time she came to meet our family of eight children – Cold

=============

Not much of a hint unless you’re saying she’s black and her name is Jones. But I don’t think that could be since there were zero black people living in Collingswood in those days. And, you have a “great story” but what good is that if you don’t tell it?

That’s plenty of a hint if you bother to put your Columbo trench coat on. Quit being so lazy and do a little of the work yourself. I did in determining your identity. I realize building the pyramid and settling your deceased brother’s affairs took a lot out of you, but still, don’t lay down and play dead just yet. There is no rest for the weary or the wicked.

If you read between the lines of that song, the implication is that it’s not just any old affair, but an interracial affair. “We both know it’s wrong.” “We meet every day at the same cafe.” This is late 1960’s, early 1970’s Philadelphia. What Black people are meeting at cafes? Most, if not all, are either working their asses off to make ends meet or they’re unemployed and drunk and stoned out of their minds or hanging around on the street corners shooting the shit with their equally idle friends and acquaintances. But they are most assuredly not meeting at the cafe, affair or no affair. So, I take Mrs. Jones to be White. I know that’s reading a lot into it, but in contrast, you’re reading nothing into the song and assuming because it’s a Black man singing it and Black men wrote it, it must be just about Black people, and that’s not necessarily true.

Challenge yourself to think of Mrs. Jones as White. I believe she graduated from CHS. A search of CHS yearbooks shows her younger sister did but they don’t have a reprint for the year this Mrs. Jones graduated so I can’t verify that she graduated from CHS as fact. She is three years older than my brother, which in my mind, was somewhat intriguing and sexy when I first heard about it. Ever since watching The Graduate I always wanted my own Mrs. Robinson to put in my pantry with my cupcakes.

Anyway, back to me and Mrs. Jones — she’s now 62 and recently had a birthday, so she’s recently 62. If you had sex with her as you claim, that would make you a pedophile since you have twelve years on her meaning when she was fourteen you were twenty six, or when she was eight you were twenty (I like to show off my math skills every chance I can get).

When she graduated high school, I’m not sure if she went to college or not, although she possesses above-average intelligence. When she and my brother started dating she worked as an executive admin. for either a law firm or an accounting firm in Philadelphia. She was twenty-six when they first started dating, so I’m not sure why a young lawyer or accountant didn’t snatch her up. She is particular and picky to a fault — very difficult to please, so I imagine sex with her, for me at least, would be an impossible exercise or in the least certainly not worth the trouble to get things to her exacting specifications.

Like you, she’s incredibly snarky and highly passive-aggressive. She exudes a judgmental arrogance that’s out of place for someone of her station and status in the socio-economic hierarchy. She has a decent sense of humor except it’s often maliciously directed at other people specifically and never or hardly ever at herself, so unlike a True Comedian she’s not self-effacing and self-deprecating, or not nearly enough considering how zealously she skewers others.

She often brags about how her ancestors came over on the Mayflower. If I’ve heard this once, I’ve heard it a thousand times. I want to say to her, but never have, “yeah, well my ancestors came over in steerage on some unknown freighter and were fist-fucked at Ellis Island before being dumped in some urban tenement,” but I don’t think she’d get it and our pseudo estrangement would be a full and complete estrangement.

I’ll recount the story of when she first met the family later today or tomorrow. It was a life-defining moment for me. Some things stay with you forever and define you regardless of how much you’ve changed over the years. This is one of those things, although I have so many just like it I can never escape people’s historically-rooted, intractable perception of who and what I am. She and her husband, and no doubt their children, believe I’m a communist, when in fact I’ve proven at this blog many times over, under the aegis of their conservatism they wear on their arms like a Nazi badge, they are the True Communists, and there’s nothing more pathetic than communists who deny their communism.

For now, I’ll leave you with another rendition of Me and Mrs. Jones by a band who’s two leading members, John Hall and Daryl Oates, graduated from the same high school my two sisters and another brother did. I like the Billy Paul version the best. Nobody but nobody can match that smooth — not even you Q. Shtik.

1. I realize building the pyramid and settling your deceased brother’s affairs took a lot out of you, but still, don’t lay down and play dead just yet.

2. Challenge yourself to think of Mrs. Jones as White. I believe she graduated from CHS.

3. If you read between the lines of that song, the implication is that it’s not just any old affair, but an interracial affair. “We both know it’s wrong.”

4. so she’s recently 62. If you had sex with her as you claim, that would make you a pedophile since you have twelve years on her meaning when she was fourteen you were twenty six,

5. She often brags about how her ancestors came over on the Mayflower. If I’ve heard this once, I’ve heard it a thousand times.

6. For now, I’ll leave you with another rendition of [Me and Mrs. Jones]

7. graduated from the same high school my two sisters and another brother did

=========================

1. You make it sound like it’s all squared away. Far from it.

2. If she went to CHS and graduated 12 years after me that would be about 1970. I’m fairly certain there were STILL no blacks in Collingswood at that time. So, it makes sense that she would be white and so if this was an inter-racial affair then your brother is black and you are black unless you aren’t actually blood brothers. Orrrr, she’s white and he’s Indian, Chinese, Inuit or some such. Anybody adopted?

3. I didn’t take those words to mean interracial…I was thinking they’re both married to somebody else and fooling around on the side and Mrs Jones is just an alias like when, in the old days, two people would check in to a hotel under some innocuous name like Smith (or Jones).

4. And when she was 20 I was 32. I am, in fact, 9 years older than my wife. We have this old routine…I ask “Where were you when I was 18?” and she says “I was 9” and I say “I didn’t ask how old I asked where.”

5. If everyone who claims their ancestors came over on the Mayflower did, the Mayflower would have to be larger than the biggest ship in the Carnival Cruise Line fleet.

6. [Mrs Jones and I]

7. There seems to be a great gulf between you and your siblings, especially your brothers. Whuts up wit dat?

Jesus H. Christ, you’re impossible. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. Suffice it to say, you don’t know her so it doesn’t matter either way. My experience with you is my experience with most people from your area of America. I grew up there, so I know. Most people (there are exceptions thankfully) I am acquainted with from that area are developmentally arrested. They’ve never learned to fully decenter which is a process that begins at age seven approximately and is complete, all else being equal, by the end of adolescence. All else being equal is the operative phrase because apparently more than a few people in this world haven’t properly decentered. The world revolves around them and is limited to their stunted and calcified preconceptions. Any new experience or concept must be compared to, and usurped by, what they’ve always known and made into that image, or forced to fit in it regardless of how absurd such forcing is. Hence, when such a person experiences a Muffaletta for the first time, they say “it’s a Hoagie or a Sub Sandwich” when it is no such thing and only related on a very general, superficial level. It’s lazy and immature thinking and perceiving, and often this severe and limiting deficiency is masked with disregarding and dismissive humor. If this shoe doesn’t fit you then stop wearing it for Christ’s sake, otherwise I’ll assume it fits perfectly.

At this point I’m thinking I could have supplied this video as a hint and you’d force it into your incomplete and deficient operating system exactly as you’ve done with the first video and there would be no difference because it’s not the quality of the hint that’s hindering this process — it’s the compromised operating system processing it. Per the video — nice teeth and WTF is up with the hair? JHK would love the tattoo’s, wouldn’t he? I can’t even understand what the hell she’s saying, but the title made me laugh out loud considering our bizarre discussion.

The preoperational stage ranges from about ages 2 to 7 (Piaget, 1951, 1952). Children in this stage can mentally represent events and objects (the semiotic function), and engage in symbolic play.

Their thoughts and communications are typically egocentric (i.e. about themselves).

Egocentrism refers to the child’s inability to see a situation from another person’s point of view. According to Piaget, the egocentric child assumes that other people see, hear, and feel exactly the same as the child does. Piaget wanted to find out at what age children decenter – i.e. become no longer egocentric.

Here’s another thing that happens all the time to me. I lay out some dogshit and invariably someone such as yourself comes and steps in it as you have with your most recent post at CFN. In my last comment to you I explained to you and the audience people’s inability to decenter, and what do you do? You prove your inability to decenter by continuing to adhere to this ridiculous trope that is simply not true in any respect. The following quote is from the link to the PCR article you posted at CFN.

What does this tell us about the Federal Reserve’s policy of Quantitative Easing, which is an euphemism for printing an enormous amount of new dollars?

I’ve covered this in my first post and many times at CFN, but you’re incapable of, despite all the facts and logic to the contrary, changing your egocentric world view. Why aren’t you correcting PCR’s grammar? Because you’re a suck-ass, that’s why. You’re paternalistic and authoritarian and give more weight and deference to the opinions of those with status regardless of their has-been characterization.

You can sing it all day long everyday, Q. Shtik, but QE is not money printing. The money in circulation has actually decreased under QE and that’s contrary to the notion of “money printing.” Also, drop the pipe dream of going back to some semblance of a gold standard. I know that’s where you would like to park some of your new-found wealth, but it isn’t going to happen (another gold standard). But park it in gold anyway and take a beating. Listen to the gold bugs. They have nothing but your best interests at heart. Also, aren’t you a stock market investor? If so, at least according to PCR per the article, you should be dead-set against any kind of gold standard. According to Roberts, your investing good fortune and that of your deceased brother’s was due to a weak dollar decoupled from, and not backed by, gold. You’re a contradiction, in otherwords, but of course I already knew that.

For those following along, here’s Q. Shtik’s post from CFN:

I don’t think anyone here has mentioned the Swiss referendum on gold that will take place this Sunday, Nov 30. If you’re unaware of what it’s all about read the link below by PCR.

The polls show that it is becoming less likely in the past several weeks to get a yes vote and when you read PCR’s explanation you will understand why. A yes vote would be detrimental to the interests of the so-called 1%.

I favor a yes vote by the Swiss. Even if the yes vote percentage loses but is significantly better than the polls are showing it would be at least a partial victory.

You can be sure Krugperson would favor a no vote as would his namesake who writes for the NY Times.

For the record, I favor neither. To think it’s as simple as all that is nonsensical and naive.

Let’s take a look at our friend, Paul Craig Roberts. From his Wikipedia page here, and as we all know, if you have a Wikipedia page devoted to you you’re somebody rather than a nobody like you and me:

He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder of Reaganomics.

Reaganomics is nothing more than Big Government in disguise. Reagan was the forefather of the the budget deficit, and Reaganomics is all about budget deficits. In order to cover some of the shortfall, Reaganomics insituted a regressive tax hike by raising the social security tax. This was sold to the public as shoring up social security, but as the following article reveals, it was anything but that. It was theft from the social security fund on a massive scale and it set a precedent for all the presidents, as part of The Washington Consensus, who “served” subsequent to Reagan. So, Reaganomics was about transferring what little wealth the poor and middle class produced to the uber-wealthy, and as the quote says above, Paul Craig Roberts is the co-founder of it. Yet, here we have Q. Shtik quoting this guy as an authority and trusting his judgment. Some people never learn. Many people never learn. Most people never learn.

Ronald Reagan was one of the most popular presidents in modern history. As a former Hollywood actor, he had an uncommon degree of charisma. The conservatives absolutely loved Reagan for his efforts to reduce the size of government, but most liberals hated him with a passion. Reagan is still revered by a lot of Americans. This reverence for Ronald Reagan helps to explain how he was able to fool most of the American people to a degree unparalleled by any other modern president. With the help of Alan Greenspan, Reagan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people.

It is so ironic that many people, today, still believe that Ronald Reagan came galloping up on a great white horse to sound the alarm that Social Security was in deep financial trouble. He then allegedly figured out a solution to the problem and rammed his legislative proposal through Congress in a three-month period. On April 20, 1983, the signing ceremony for the new legislation took place with great fanfare. Below are some of Reagan’s remarks at the signing ceremony.

This bill demonstrates for all time our nation’s ironclad commitment to social security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have our pledge that they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire…

Today, all of us can look each other square in the eye and say, “We kept our promises.” We promised that we would protect the financial integrity of social security. We have. We promised that we would protect beneficiaries against any loss in current benefits. We have. And we promised to attend to the needs of those still working, not only those Americans nearing retirement but young people just entering the labor force. And we’ve done that, too…

Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.

The 1983 legislation was sold to the public, and to the Congress, as a long-term fix for Social Security. The payroll tax hike was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for 30 years, which would be set aside to cover the increased cost of paying benefits when the boomers retired.

Let’s have a look at the events leading up to this proposal. Reagan and the government had big financial problems. Supply-side economics was not working like Reagan had promised. Instead of the lower tax rates generating more revenue as the supply-siders claimed would happen, there was a dramatic drop in revenue. Something had to be done, so Ronald Reagan set for himself a new mission. He would have to figure out a way to get the additional revenue he needed from another source.

The mechanism, which allowed the government to transfer $2.7 trillion from the Social Security fund to the general fund over a 30-year period, was the brainchild of President Ronald Reagan and his advisers, especially Alan Greenspan. Greenspan played a key role in convincing Congress and the public to support a hike in the payroll tax. A few years later, Reagan appointed Greenspan to become Chairman of the Federal Reserve System. Since Greenspan’s new job was one of the most coveted positions in Washington, many observers have wondered whether or not this appointment represented, at least in part, payback for the role Greenspan had played in making vast sums of new revenue available to the government.

President Reagan and his advisors knew, from the very beginning, that the government would soon face a severe cash shortage. Budget Director, David Stockman, had deliberately rigged the computer at the Office of Management and Budget to generate bogus revenue forecasts in an effort to convince Congress to enact Reagan’s unaffordable proposed tax cuts. When Stockman first fed the data from Reagan’s economic proposals into the computer, he was shocked. The computer forecast that, if Reagan’s proposals were enacted into law, massive budget deficits would loom ahead for as far as the eye could see.

Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes? An increase in Social Security taxes would be easier to enact than a hike in income tax rates, and it would leave his income tax cuts undisturbed. Reagan’s first step in implementing his strategy was to write to Congressional leaders. His first letter, dated May 21, 1981 included the following:

As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy…in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens.

Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July 18, 1981, which included:

The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.

Social Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as Reagan claimed in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But that was nearly two decades down the road. In addition to the long-term problem of the baby boomers, the Commission found a possible short-term problem for the years 1983-89. But the outlook improved and became favorable for the 1900s and early 2000s. The possible minor problem for the years 1983-1989 was based on very pessimistic economic assumptions. So, at the time Reagan informed Congressional leaders that Social Security was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, the actual condition of Social Security funding was fairly sound for the next two decades.

Furthermore, Social Security was certainly not Reagan’s “highest priority.” Reagan had never been a friend of Social Security. He was a hardliner when it came to all government social programs. He called unemployment insurance “a prepaid vacation plan for freeloaders.” He said the progressive income tax was “a brainchild of Karl Marx.” And he called welfare recipients “a faceless mass waiting for handouts.” Reagan referred to Social Security as a “welfare program” and, during the 1976 Republican Presidential Primary, Reagan proposed making Social Security voluntary, which would have essentially destroyed the program. There is no way that anyone who knew Reagan’s record would accept his claim that Social Security was his highest priority. He had always wanted the program eliminated, or at least privatized.

Reagan’s scare tactics worked. Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate. The tax increase was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years. The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could later be resold to raise cash with which to pay benefits to the boomers. But that didn’t happen. The money was all deposited directly into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes. Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue, which came in during his presidency, on general government operations. His successor, George H.W. Bush, used the surplus money as a giant slush fund, and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush looted and spent all of the Social Security surplus revenue that flowed in during their presidencies. So we can’t blame the whole problem on Reagan. Reagan was the one who figured out a way to use Social Security money as general revenue, and his successors just followed his example.

The $2.7 trillion, which is alleged to be in the trust fund, was all spent for wars, tax cuts for the rich, and other government programs. If the money is repaid at some point in the future, we could say is was just “borrowed.” But no arrangements have been made to repay the money, and nobody in government is suggesting that the money should be repaid. So, if it is never repaid, the money will definitely have been stolen.

This would not be such a serious problem if Social Security was still running annual surpluses. But Social Security ran it last annual surplus in 2009, and began running permanent annual deficits in 2010. The cost of paying full Social Security benefits for 2010 exceeded Social Security’s total tax revenue by $49 billion. So how did the government pay full Social Security benefits in 2010? They borrowed $49 billion from China, or one of our other creditors. And the amount that will have to be borrowed in future years will become larger and larger. If the trust fund had not been looted, there would be $2.7 trillion of marketable U.S. Treasury bonds in the fund that could be sold in the open market for cash. But the trust fund doesn’t hold a dime’s worth of marketable real assets of any kind.

That’s why President Obama warned during the debt-ceiling crisis of 2011 that Social Security checks could not go out on time unless the dispute was settled, because “their might not be enough money in the coffers.” The grandiose lie that the Social Security Administration, the AARP, and the NCPSSM, repeatedly tells the public is outrageous. They continue to say that Social Security has enough money to pay full benefits for another 20 years without any government action, when Social Security cannot pay full benefits for a single year without borrowing money. The IOUs in the trust fund are not marketable, and they have no monetary value. They are worthless!

We can easily understand why the SSA continues to repeat the big lie. That is what they are told to do by top government officials, who are trying to keep the Social Security theft a secret from the public. But why do the senior organizations continue to repeat the lie? They are supposed to be representing the best interests of their members, but, in my opinion, they are betraying their members.

So the great Social Security fraud, which began under Ronald Reagan in 1981, is still alive and well 32 years after it began. Republican and Democrat presidents and Republican and Democrat members of Congress, all share in the blame. There is nothing broken about Social Security. If the government had not stolen $2.7 trillion from Social Security, or, if the government would make arrangements to repay the stolen money, Social Security would be able to pay full benefits for at least 20 more years without any other action. But crooked politicians, who do not want to repay the money, are trying to convince the public that Social Security is a flawed system, which needs to be replaced with private accounts.

Social Security is a sound program that has worked well for more than 75 years. It ain’t broke, so why try to fix it? The government—not Social Security—is what is broken and needs to be fixed. It is time for the American people to stand their ground and fire the crooked politicians. President Obama, and every member of Congress know that everything in this article is true. But they have succeeded in fooling the people for three decades and seem to think they can continue to do so. Don’t let them get by with it!